Yes - you should be able to enable transparency multisampling in just about every situation where you're using anti-aliasing on a mid-to-high end card. Transparency supersampling is a little more taxing, though.

Originally Posted by kickarseI simply can't tell the difference and when it comes to CS: Source it's if I can the enemy well not "ooh pretty trees"...

The foliage differences are mainly noticeable when you're moving around - it's similar to texture shimmering/crawling but on objects that aren't on the ground. If you've never seen texture shimmering, you're probably not going to be able to see aliased alpha tested textures either. ;)

I still need to spend some time evaluating the image quality, but there's definitely a reduction in sampling - it ultimately depends how much of a reduction there is and whether its possible to see, or not. :)

thanks to the article i was able to enable Adaptive AA on my AIW 9600XT. Basically what i did was shove the AA to 6X Adaptive AA on top of 16X AF and... boy, what a quality difference versus no AA no AF. problem is... well.... from 40 fps to 9 and below isnt tooo fun. lol. but it was pretty pretty foliage. looked like a completely new game with a new graphics patch and what not.

But
a) AA / AF seems to make very little difference from what i see, with the trees, i couldnt see the difference, with the fences, yes, but not huge

b) Who spends their time looks at fences while playing ? - you gotta be a n00b to do this, oooo how pretty is this fence its amaz - Boom Headshot

c) How is it worth it ? Cmon people, for this negligable difference in gamplay, were spending significant amounts of money, and dropping alot of FPS

d) ok so i understand what you mean with the edges of objects, but with 2x AA (whatever my 6800gt supports) it lowers it plenty enough to be quite nice, playable, maybe not the best possible, besides this, i can set all max settings on CSS / HL2 and get ~100 FPS (1280x1024, havent looked recently)

the only reason i want to upgrade my gfx card ATM is oblivion, every other game atm works fine with my 6800GT

the killer in oblivion is my resolution - 1680x1050

other then that, i still dont see this difference that is worth it

Maybe you lot have £100's to throw down the drain on hardware that will be out of date in no-time, but i certainly dont, and IMO the best purchase i made recently was my 2005FPW which is so much nicer then my 19" AG Neovo (the cheapest range) moniter i cant describe

I dont know how serious you lot are, but id rather have a quiet computer so that i can really focus on my game, then a loud one that can get all these "uber" settings

it does make the gameplay alot nicer and more enjoyable, you dont HAVE to spend the entire time looking at the scenery. it can also help you aim at people in some instances (you might see them clearer).

and this is just for those who dont want to be playing games that look horrible, where metal looks like plastic, etc.

FWIW, the 6800 series coolers re load compared to the likes of 7800 GTX.

Also, if you don't notice any difference between standard AA and AF settings, you're not going to notice a difference between transparency/adaptive AA and conventional AA.

There was no point where we said 'you need to buy new hardware because these settings are soooo worth it'. If you've got the hardware, we think it's worth having a look at them in real-time, because the differences can't be shown fully without a moving picture.

Fast computers do NOT have to be loud. There must be a mis-conception somewhere that high end cooling sounds like a jet engine.
It might cost a little more, but there's not a huge difference between quiet cooling and loud cooling in terms of cost. If you do things right, performance is the same/better too...

The thing with maxing the detail settings (from my POV anyway) is that you don't really notice when your machine can't cope with them. However, as soon as you have a machine capable of maxing the details, you start to notice them a whole lot more!

Also, surely upgrading to a bigger screen (over upgrading a gfx card) can be a double edged sword? Ok you've got wtf massive!!111one screen + res. But on the other hand, you've got to drop the detail levels to get a decent framerate due to the uber res you're running... That kinda doesnt make sense :P

Anywho, back on topic! Been playing with Transpareny AA settings over the last few days, don't seem to have a massive performance hit at all. You can see the difference too, can't quite explain it but everything looks smoother with Supersampling TAA enabled...

Originally Posted by Highland3rAnywho, back on topic! Been playing with Transpareny AA settings over the last few days, don't seem to have a massive performance hit at all. You can see the difference too, can't quite explain it but everything looks smoother with Supersampling TAA enabled...

Absolutely, it's very hard to explain without videos showing it - that's why I recommend having a look for yourself if you've got a card capable of doing such things. ;)

Originally Posted by yahooadami can see the point in source maybe, beacause that game doesnt require a powerful PC

but BF2 or FEAR where to run high settings you need an expensive GFX card

i do have to say upgrading the screen and not the gfx card is a bit stupid, however atleast my GFX card can support it, just

Edit
Oh yeh and people who go SLI 7900's and run it at 800x640 (yes ive seen some people who do) WDH

thats just plain stupid ....

lmao...
i run a 9600XT and i run all the settings at max just for laughs and giggles in a Quake 2 engine based game. the differences were VERY noticeable, it made the max quality look crappy. it was pretty much like bringing fear's quality level from minimal to ultra, you could start to read stuff (like maps on the wall) where before it was just a simple blurr. but of course, on the maps where there were loads of foliage and rain, the fps did suffer quite a bit, i got it down to 6 fps at one point where there was heavy fire and in the area with the most foliage. but hey, i could see individual leaves pretty damn clearly. and im runing 1280x1024 mind you

and yeah, SLI for low resolutiuons is just plain stupid. i'd rather 1280x1024 no aa no af vs 800x600 4xAA 8xAF

« Previous

1

Next »

Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.